Roe v. Wade
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey first retained Roe's essential previability holding while rejecting its rigid trimester framework; Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization later overruled Roe and held that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion. The Supreme Court of Florida also declined to follow Roe's privacy framework when interpreting Florida's Privacy Clause. The 3 confirmed treatments are listed below; the other citing opinions applied or reaffirmed Roe, reported another court's treatment, addressed unrelated precedent, presented rejected party arguments, or appeared only in separate opinions.
5,575 later cases cite Roe v. Wade; 228 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Roe v. Wade?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Overruled
-
Dobbs held that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion and expressly overruled Roe.
Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
We therefore hold that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion. Roe and Casey must be overruled, and the authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and their elected representatives.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Overruled in Part
-
Casey retained Roe's essential previability holding but rejected its rigid trimester framework and substituted the undue-burden standard.
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
We reject the rigid trimester framework of Roe v. Wade. To promote the State’s profound interest in potential life, throughout pregnancy the State may take measures to ensure that the woman’s choice is informed, and measures designed to advance this interest will not be invalidated as long as their purpose is to persuade the woman to choose childbirth over abortion. These measures must not be an undue burden on the right.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Declined to Follow
-
The Supreme Court of Florida declined Roe's privacy framework as a guide to the original public meaning of Florida's Privacy Clause.
Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida v. State · Supreme Court of Florida · filed
Since Roe featured prominently in T.W., we think it fair to also point out that the T.W. majority did not examine or offer a reasoned response to the existing criticism of that decision or consider ... whether it was doctrinally coherent. This was a significant misstep because Roe did not provide a settled definition of privacy rights. ... In light of T.W.’s analytical deficiencies and subsequent U.S. Supreme Court decisions rejecting the Roe framework on which T.W.’s reasoning depended, our assessment of the challenged statute requires us to examine the Privacy Clause and, for the first time in the abortion context, consider the original public meaning of the text as it was understood by Florida voters in 1980.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Roe v. Wade and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace